This would be more of a variation rather than a mutation. Even so, it doesn't create a new virus, it's still an aids virus. None of these produce a new kind of animal, they just keep the species strong. Dogs will produce dogs and cats will produce cats. That's the way it's always been and will always be. Heres some interesting evidence of man and dinosaurs living together. In 1571 the Spanish conquistadors were exploring what is now Ica, Peru when they discovered rocks with strange creatures carved on them. They had never seen animals like this so they sent some to the King of Spain. He also had never seen such creatures. Dr. Cabrera, a medical doctor from Lima devoted much of his life (he died in 2001) to collecting and studying these stones. On them you will see people doing brain and heart surgery as well as every known dinosaur clearly depicted. Several hundred of them show humans and dinosaurs together. Skeptics have tried to portray them as being carved by local peasants for profit. One peasant was even interviewed on TV “admitting” he carved them. What the interview did not show was that there were police officers waiting behind the camera to arrest him and put him in jail (a very bad place to go in Peru!) if he admitted he was selling Peruvian national treasures. When he tried to carve one on TV to show how he did it, the work looked like a child’s work and it was obvious he was not the one carving the actual Ica stones. Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. Textiles and pottery from the same area also depict man with dinosaurs. Dr. Dennis Swift of Beverton, OR spent many hours in Peru with Dr. Cabrera analyzing the stones. Dr. Carl Baugh, 254-897-3200, www.creationevidence.org, Dr. Don Patton, 972-279-5325, www.bible.ca/tracks and Antoine Ouellette 450-359-4405 have also devoted much study to this topic. See also, www.wexclub.comfor a similar find of dinosaurs with man in Mexico. also click here to see why carbon dating doesn't work.
That is not true. I have given references to speciation (in lab and in nature) in other threads. We have been over this before. It works.
Can you provide a non-religious link? Is there a scientist on earth that agrees with you? Or even someone who doesn't believe in the bible that agrees with you? Doesn't it seem as though these people are mad that the truth contradicts their religious beliefs? they have an agenda, science does not. If you knew anything about darwin you would know he was religious and became most distraught when he learned that the bible was a crock of shit. He didn't want to disprove religion, he discovered that real life disproves religion and was disappointed. But being a reasonable human being he couldn't continue lieing to himself. What are you doing? Have you no common sense? You think the entire world other than a few religious fanatics are wrong? Does that seem like a reasonable assumption to make? Considering the fact that everyone who learns about life believes in evolution, while people who only learn about the bible do not, who seems like the higher authority on the matter? Its like if athiests were saying they could recite the psalms better than christians without ever reading the bible. Wouldn't that be ridiculous? I've never read ezekiel, what if I was saying "no ezekiel is about formula 1 racing", would you take me seriously? This is the same. Do you have some interest in evolution? Have you studied it meticulously searching for knowledge about natural history and life on earth? No, you clearly don't know anything about it, you just want to disprove it because in your mind that will make religion more credible (and ofcourse it wouldn't anyway). You're not here to learn about evolution, you're here to say its wrong because you want it to be wrong. Well its not wrong, get over it. I'll tell you right now all of your links are worthless and do not make a valid point ONCE. None of them have yet and none of them will. How long will it take for your kind to become extinct? I mean realy talk about continuing against all odds. Like a freaking polar bear in the desert. Its utterly mind boggling that people can continue to not believe in evolution. Nobody denies evolution, let me rephrase that, nobody who understands denies evolution. The evidence really is that overwhelming. To continue not believing in evolution you simply must be purposefully not trying to understand. Avoiding knowledge. You have to come to terms with the fact that you do not want to know the truth. So why ask questions? Go and sit in a cupboard with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed and die a happy faithfull christian.
Science doesn't TRY to explain ultimate WHYs because they don't mean anything. Asking why is a common anthropogenic fault in our thinking where we presume things must exist or happen for an ultimate reason. How many people still believe the entire old testament anyway as fact? How many people believe the entire bible as fact?
You don't have to read it as an historical account to have a conflict with the bible. The bible put man as the center of the universe. Evolution shows humans are just another species of animal. Nothing special about them except a fairly large brain and some advanced state of consciousness. The theory of evolution doesn't receive such a bad reception with religious people because it is an unsupported theory. It is probably the best supported scientific theory ever. They can't handle that they are mere animals and that there is no higher 'central' purpose in life (other than the one you fancy to give it yourself)
It's a bit of a digression, perhaps, but many people who believe in evolution also seriously think that dinosaurs might have survived, here & there, into recent times. Other living fossils, creatures little changed over vast spans of time, are well documented: the most extreme case being a deep-ocean snail found near the Galapagos, virtually identical to fossils 500 million years old! This goes to show that evolution should not be thought of as inevitable or inexorable. Once an organism is best optimised for its habitat and lifestyle, it need not change any further - as long as the habitat is stable. If you're right about dinosaurs & humans being contemporary in pre-colonial Peru, Radont84, then I find the idea just as exciting as you. For a different reason. And it would be doubly tragic that those dinosaurs didn't last a few more centuries. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok, this will be my last post since almost everyone on this forum has been so brainwashed by evolution that they refuse to look at the facts. I KNOW I am right, I may not be able to prove it as well as some other scientists but there is evidence out there that proves there was a worldwide flood about 4400 years ago, I just can't explain it as well. I'm not mad because you THINK creation isn't true, I just don't want to see people go to hell because of what darwin did so long ago. He went to some islands and looked at birds and came to the conclusion that we all came from a rock over 3 million years ago and that somehow banana's and elephants are related. But, if you want to continue believing in evolution you just go right ahead and don't come crying to me when the world ends and you wind up in hell. If you want to know the truth, and I highly suggest you do if you don't want to burn for all eternity, go to www.drdino.com and download the seminars and watch them, they will convince you. With that I will take my leave of these forums and not return. Have a pleasant life. Starthane Xyzth: If you want to learn more about dinosaurs still alive today, download seminar #3, it will tell you all about it.
My Theories? Okay back it up... reeead what I wrote. I said Can I Suggest You Read DARWIN? It's HIS theories that are in question here. Why do I believe what I believe? Because personally, I don't think there is an all knowing, omnipresent, all powerfull being that from absolute nothing, suddenly decided that something must exist and then created it. I don't believe that there is a higher purpose to be here. I think, and this is my opinion, that the idea that this is possible is close to ridiculous. I don't believe in witches, goblins, ogres, sprites or faries... I certainly don't believe in ghosts... even if they are holy. Don't ask me to explain Jesus. That was too long ago. Creationism to me is sensless. There may not be logic in everything... but it's more probable that the ghost story.
Oh there is the classic, "Oh you are SO going to Hell for not believing in creationism". With Science, we persuade people with facts. With religion, there are no facts, so they persuade people with fear... like, "You are going to HELL you horrid person you... unless of course you believe in creationism." What an ignorant person you are radont. Alot of people here are very open minded. And you are so closed minded, that you have to try to scare people into believing that you are right. That just destroyed any validity any of your statements had. And btw, so what if there was a flood 4400 years ago? There was a flood last week somewhere... hell, it rained for 2 days straight over here. There have even been mass floods before that. Thats why we can find marine fossils on dry land (if you can even call that a flood). Later T (P.S. Guess what? You might go to Hell for Giving UP! Run away a little more!)
Well, I kept away from this thread because I found radont84 a character very much like David Mayes (remember him, in global warming and karate threads?) with such a tunnel vision that lead him directly to obnoxiousness. I kept away from the discussion because you can't argue aganist religious beliefs using scientific facts. But anyhow, radont84 was very funny, and his arguments really gave me moments of laughter. I will miss him, if for no other reason that comedians nowadays are not being too funny.
how the hell can you not believe evolution after all the proof and (obviously irrevalent) things have been brought up. dam i hate these creationist scientists 'geezers', they talk what i call 'shit' and the day its true is the day hell freezes over but since there is NO HELL AS THERE IS NO HEAVEN thats not a problem
It is people like these narrow minded individuals that have actually helped me realise that there is no God, afterlife or great purpose so I praise then for showing me the light!
thats fair enough, but once they have shown the light can they not shut up and stay out of my way.? they have now decided to disrupt the american education system and have creationist science actually TAUGHT to pupils. i mean, people might actually believe them. forget freemasonary, the church is subverting the very foundations of your life- your education! run for the hills?"!"?!
If Radont were arguing on the side of logic and sound evidence, I suppose he could do pretty well here. Perhaps he'll be back. I think the title of this thread should have been: "Can Creationism be Substantiated?"
<font face=verdana size=2 color=#000000> There are some things that have not been mentioned or touched in this discussion, that would have ended it when it started, let me quote Stephen Jay Gould from his book, “Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes”:<dir><font color="#0000dd">“Although no thinking person doubted the fact of evolution by 1909, Darwin's own theory about its mechanism – natural selection – was not at the height of popularity. Indeed, 19090 marked the acme of confusion about how evolution happened in the midst of complete confidence that it had occurred. An embattled group of strict Drawinians, led by the aging A.R. Wallace in England and by A. Weismann in Germany, continued to hold that virtually all evolutionary change occurred by the <B>cumulative power of natural selection building adaptation step-by-step</B> from the random raw material <B>of small scale genetic variation.</B> Lamarckism remained strong and provided an alternative to natural selection for the gradual building of adaptations – <B>creative organic response to perceived needs and the transmission of these favorable responses to offspring through the inheritance of acquired characters.</B> Mendelian inheritance, when properly elucidated, tipped the scales in Darwin's favor, but in 1909, merely sown more confusion by adding yet a third mechanism to the swirling competition – <B>production of new species all at once by large and fortuitous mutations.</B> By 1959, confusion hade ceded to the opposite undesired state of complacency. Strict Darwinism had triumphed. The flowering of Mendelian genetics had finally laid Lamarckism to rest since the workings of DNA <B>provided no mechanism for an inheritance of acquired characters.</B>” … “But random, small scale variation produces no changes by itself and requires a shaping force to preserve and enhance its favorable component.“ </font></dir><font color="#000000">Later on in his book, Gould talks about Creationism, and says this:</font><dir><font color="#0000dd">“Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A st of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.” “The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters, Their brand of creationism, they claim, is ”scientific” because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simply act of trying to falsify a rival truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meet Popper's criterion – it too must be falsifiable in principle. “Scientific Creationism” is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent (1978) book, <I>“Evolution? The Fossils Say No!”</I>: “By creation we mean the bringing into being by a Supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics] This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is “scientific” creationism?</font><font color="#000000"></dir>
Evolution is simply the logical progression of biological interactions of all living organisims within their ever changing environmental conditions, over the span of countless generations of adapting species within any given ecosystem. Creationism (I'm not an atheist), is the belief that a superbeing(s) exist simply because a bunch of stupid goat herders were conned by a smarter group of lazy goat herders to donate a percentage of their goats milk so that a fear based book could be produced & later used to start the basis of taxation that continues to this day in all types and forms & is now called government. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!free the weed
evolution is definitley true, whether or not ther was some allpowerful being that sparked the big bang or not is the hard part
